Mahabharata Related Discussions

Page

Next Last

varaali

@varaali

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 14 years ago

SInce our discussions henceforth will inevitably revolve around Pandavas, Kauravas and Krishna, I thought maybe we can have them under 'one' thread. [Since the daily updates thread gets locked by the end of the day...and the EDT has all sorts of topics in it...]

So the MB track has been introduced by way of Kunti's letter to Krishna.

Blooper No 1 - As Vrish rightly pointed out, Kunti does not seek Krishna's assistance at this stage. She seeks Vidura's help.

It is only much later (Draupadi Swayamvar ) time that Krishna begins to play a greater role in their lives

Blooper No 2- Returning from Gurukul? The time line has left me confused. The relative ages are well chartered out in the MB. Yudhishthira and Bhima are older than Krishna.Arjuna probably the same age, younger by a few months and Nakula and Sahadeva a year or two younger.

Now, K has married thrice, established a kingdom, and (had it been possible for the Sagars to show) on the verge of becoming father. Now all this while the Pandavas were in Gurukul? The usual age for leaving gurukul is 20 (initiation into Brahmacharya at 8 and 12 years of study thereafter.)

After K killed Kamsa he was invested with the sacred thread and packed off to Guru Sandipani's ashram where Balram and Krishna learnt everything superfast. Then came the episode of Krishna rescuing Punardutta and his subsequent battles with Jarasandha.

This would have been the time Pandavas also graduated from their Gurukul. Arjuna's victroy over Drupada would have been around the same time as Krishna's relocation to Dwaraka.

Hence this Kunti's letter is totally out of place. In fact the relative ages suggest that this would have been the time for the Lakshagraha incident to take place.

Blooper No 3- If at all the creatives wanted to show Kunti seeking help, it should have been from her brother- Vasudeva rather than her nephew . But she never does. She does not seem to have sought help from either her Yadava brothers or her Chedi sister. Till Krishna steps forward during Draupadi's swayamvar and offers the Pandavas a handsome gift in terms of wealth and horses (and induces Drupada to do the same), Kunti's sole support in Hastinapur was Vidura.

Edited by varaali - 14 years ago

Quote

Frequent Posters

Chandra

@Roark

Rocker

Posted: 14 years ago

Hi Vaarali, I am back again with my trifle knowlegde. Evertime I said I will write later, I disappeared. Working and travel does that to me. And this time its been hectic.

Yes, I so agree with whats written. Both Yudhistir and Bheema were elder to Krishna. Which also maked Duryodhana elder to him as he and Bheema if I am not mistaken were of the same age.

Arjun was either the same agre or younger. Infact kunti never asked for such a help. It was Dritrashtra who wanted to know and Vidura who was supported by Bheeshma and Kripa said Yudhistra was to be the crown prince.

Krishna comes into play only during Draupadi's swayamvar.

Vidura was the only support of Kunti in Hastinapur when she came with her widowed children. Though Bheeshma favoured her he could not show open allegienance as he was bound to the throne of Hastinapur.

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Nandini

@NandiniRaizadaa

Trailblazer

+ 4

Posted: 14 years ago

Oh so there are already bloopers right!!!!

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 14 years ago

Okay, new question from me - did Drona ever teach either Bhima or Duryodhan gada-yudh, as shown in today's episode, and repeated often?

Reason I ask - reading the Mahabharat chapter about Drona tutoring the Kurus, there is no mention there of his training them about gada-yudh. The reference to Balarama having tutored both Bhima & Duryodhan is only implicitly mentioned in Shalya Parva, but in SB, it's mentioned that Balarama trained Duryodhan after Krishna killed Satadhandva, but nowhere there is it mentioned that he taught Bhima.

The thing that strikes me is that why would either Bhima or Duryodhan need 2 gurus to teach them gada-yudh? At least from what I read here, their only guru would have been Balarama when it came to this. Although that would raise the question as to whether Balarama taught them both gada-yudh before that royal tournament in Hastinapur where Karna first surfaced. Going by the SB account, at least Duryodhan would have been taught by Balarama after that event. But that still begs the question about when would Balarama have had the opportunity to train Bhima? Would it have been before the Pandavas moved to Hastinapur following Pandu's death? Or later?

Quote

Chandra

@Roark

Rocker

Posted: 14 years ago

Vrish, if I have read it right, Duryodhana and Bhima were both in the gurukul of Drona only. The initial mace fight they learnt from him only. Its only for what we call these days higher studies, they went to dwaraka to learn it from Balarama. Exact source I am not sure. Will try and find it for you.

Quote

varaali

@varaali

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 14 years ago

Originally posted by: .Vrish.
Tan

Actually, when Drona cast aside his weapons and took his yogic position, his soul passed away, and that was observed by just 5 people - Yudhisthir, Krishna, Arjun, Kripa and Sanjaya. In other words, Drona was already dead when Dhrishtadyumna struck his lifeless body - in other words, even if he had never been born, at least in this department, the Pandavas' work would have been done. Ashwatthama too held the Pandavas, not just Dhrishtadyumna, responsible for Drona's death.

Which is why I think Drupada really got cheated in this yagna. Unlike other cases I mentioned above, he was totally worthless against the entire top tier of Kaurava warriors - Bheeshma, Drona, Kripa, Ashwatthama, Kritavarma. I've never understood why he, instead of Satyaki, was the senapari of the Pandava army.

After Drona, Drupada's next big grievance should have been against the Pandavas, who defeated him, not the Kauravas, who got defeated by him, and they should have been his #2 target for revenge, given his vindictive nature. However, his top objective for Draupadi was getting her married to the very Arjun who defeated him. But that only made him a vassal of the Pandavas, instead of the other way around.

Although given Drupada's lack of integrity - given how he betrayed Drona's friendship, maybe he deserved to get a half baked boon like the one he did. Indeed, the way Drupada treated Drona and the way Krishna treated Sudama was a major study in contrasts.

All of the above was written by Vrish. My reply starts here-

Actually I have long wondered about this.

Was Arjuna really the greatest warrior (in the MB War) as he is made out to be? He was good no doubt, probably better than anyone else, but does he deserve the adulation often given to him? Because-

Shikkandin had to be brought in b/w to incapacitate Bhishma. The boon given by Shantanu protected Bhishma from death, not from get mortally wounded. Which is what happened when Arjuna attacked Bhishma,placing Shikhandin in front. If Arjuna was really the greatest Archer as is made out to be, ,should have been able to achieve he same result even w/o Shikhandin. As such ,Arjuna could not overcome Bhishma face to face.

While Arjuna easily defeated Karna at the time of Draupadi Swayamvar, the same could not be said during the War. On day 16, Karna ,had Arjuna at his mercy. It was just b'cos Karna felt that were he to shoot an arrow, it would not reach Arjuna before sunset, that Arjuna's life was spared.

Even on day 17, Karna repeated cut Gandhiva's bowstring, which of course Arjuna was able to retie instantly. Point is- would Arjuna have been able to overcome Karna in a fair fight?

What happened to all the divya- astras that Arjuna collected on his trip to heaven? He used the Summohan Astra during the Matsya Yudh, but does not seem to have used any during the War itself (apart from the Brahmastra towards the very end).

Edited by varaali - 14 years ago

Quote

Nandini

@NandiniRaizadaa

Trailblazer

+ 4

Posted: 14 years ago

See there must have been something in Arjun that the Lord chose him to to narrate the bhagvat geeta to. We cannot discount his status just because we feel sympathetic to Karna or any other

Quote

varaali

@varaali

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 14 years ago

Nandini,

Don't get me wrong. I am not going into the Nara-Narayana factor or Arjuna's relationship with Krishna. Krishna narrating the Bhagavat Gita to Arjuna is in a totally different context. At a crucial juncture, when the warriors on both sides have blown their conches and the War is just seconds away, at that critical moment, Arjuna slips into his Vishada mood and throws away his Gandhiva. Obviously Krishna has to arouse him from his Vishada and begins exhorting him to do his Karma- thus begining the BG.

My question is entirely different. If Arjuna was in possession of Divya- astras or even if he was a warrior par excellence, why did he need Shikhandin's help to fell Bhishma? Why did he have to shoot the fatal arrow when Karna was busy lifting his charriot's wheel from the mud?

In fact, despite all Krishna's qualifications about Dharma- Adharma, once the gruesome carnage started, Pandavas were equally guilty (if not more) of flouting the War rules ( the killing of Bhishma, Bhurishravas, Karna, Duryodhana Jayadrath)

P.S- I am not even remotely sympathetic towards Karna or any one else. If at all, my sympathies lie with Draupadi.

Edited by varaali - 14 years ago

Quote

Nandini

@NandiniRaizadaa

Trailblazer

+ 4

Posted: 14 years ago

Certain things in Mahabharat or in our lives too are destined to bbe the way they are destined to be

If life and death and its cause is written in heaven, then neither Arjun nor Shikhandi were the cause of Bhishma's death

It was just divine ruling

Again if we believe in the divine hand in every thing then neither Arjun nor Karna was the greatest wartier, they were both just puppets on the hand of destini and a part of the devise drama

Have you heard the story of Barbreek?

Quote

rajnish kumar

@_rajnish_

Inactive

Posted: 14 years ago

#10

Originally posted by: varaali
Nandini,

Don't get me wrong. I am not going into the Nara-Narayana factor or Arjuna's relationship with Krishna. Krishna narrating the Bhagavat Gita to Arjuna is in a totally different context. At a crucial juncture, when the warriors on both sides have blown their conches and the War is just seconds away, at that critical moment, Arjuna slips into his Vishada mood and throws away his Gandhiva. Obviously Krishna has to arouse him from his Vishada and begins exhorting him to do his Karma- thus begining the BG.

My question is entirely different. If Arjuna was in possession of Divya- astras or even if he was a warrior par excellence, why did he need Shikhandin's help to fell Bhishma? Why did he have to shoot the fatal arrow when Karna was busy lifting his charriot's wheel from the mud?

In fact, despite all Krishna's qualifications about Dharma- Adharma, once the gruesome carnage started, Pandavas were equally guilty (if not more) of flouting the War rules ( the killing of Bhishma, Bhurishravas, Karna, Duryodhana Jayadrath)

P.S- I am not even remotely sympathetic towards Karna or any one else. If at all, my sympathies lie with Draupadi.

Your question is justified, but if Arjun killing of Bhishma and Karna in this way is wrong then one would equally assume even Sri Rama killing of Vali is wrong. Karna and bhisma both are shishyas of Parsurama, both were equally divine and both in every field were at par with arjuna. whats make the difference were sides in terms of dharma and adharma. if one gets killed in unjustified way and if this killing could bring goods to others then the killing is justified. Arjun could not have killed them in front fight war and if both of them were alive, padvas would have never won over hastinapur. whom they were supporting, the former because of his vow and latter because of his debt in one way or other of course supporting adharma. both supporting wrong and supporting wrong is equal to doing wrong, other wise Anna hajare would have passed janlokpal bill as not all of politicians are corrupt.

P.S. Sorry if last sentence is out of context but it is just an example.😃

Edited by _rajnish_ - 14 years ago